Prop. 122 gives Arizona voters the opportunity to push back against federal overreach in November. Opponents of this state sovereignty measure make it seem like if it was passed, it will be the death of the Republic as we know it, but is that really the case?
The Sierra Vista Herald stated that Prop. 122 “would create disputes between Arizona and the federal government on parks, public lands, public safety services and a host of other topics that involve a working relationship between local and state governments with the federal government.”
Isn’t that the point of have separation of powers? Isn’t adversarial government a good thing? Don’t we want checks and balances? That’s what federalism does. It seems the Sierra Vista simply wants the federal government to do whatever it pleases, with no check at all.
The Arizona Republic offered similar criticism saying, “Prop. 122 would ensure full employment of lawyers. It is a temper tantrum that would solve nothing.” Former sociologist and environmental activist Jeanne Devine stated that Prop. 122 “is clearly unconstitutional and challenges the separation of powers and the relationship between state and federal government which is the heart of the U.S. Constitution.”
These criticisms are very confused. Prop. 122 doesn’t challenges the separation of powers, it strengthens them. Devine also puts his ignorance of the law on display. Prop 122 would prohibit the state from devoting any resources to enforcement of federal acts the legislature or the people deem unwarrantable, The federal government would be tasked with enforcement on its own. The measure stands as constitutional and court-approved. The well-established anti-commandeering doctrine holds that the federal government cannot force states, or commandeer their resources, to implement or enforce federal policies or regulation.
On a practical level, critics of Prop 122 fail to take into account the precarious situation that our country is in right now. We have a full-blown constitutional crisis underway. This crisis did not come about because of too much resistance to federal power. On the contrary, it began because of too many people acquiesced to federal control, aided by excuses and apologetics from the likes of the anti-Prop. 122 crowd. Because of this, we have to deal with a 1984-style police state, the end of accountability and transparency for government officials, and a gargantuan debt that cannot possibly be paid back.
Whatever horror stories conjured up by the enemies of state sovereignty cannot compare to what we actually live in right now. There is no aspect of our lives that the feds don’t have their tentacles in. They claim the authority to spy on us, detain us without charges or trial, and to tax us for doing nothing. They even dictate the size of our toilets and the kinds of light bulbs we can use.They have turned the land of the free into something that is completely unrecognizable. If there has ever been a time to push back, it is now. Going along to get along has only made things worse.
The antiquated notion of federal supremacy relies on a public that does not fully understand their rights, and considers themselves to be little more than hapless subordinates to a monolithic centralized power. When the American people realize that they are meant to work through the states to fight federal overreach, it will restore and important check and balance conceived by the founding generation. Prop 122 has the potential to set an important precedent that is great for freedom and dangerous for unrestrained power.
Because the feds are limited in resources and the size and scope of their operation is so vast, they need the states as junior partners in their schemes. If the states come together to say enough is enough, Fedzilla is cut down to size instantly. That is what Prop. 122 represents, and it has the centralizers fuming.
Prop. 122 is shot across the bow to unwarranted federal power. It is another step toward remaking America into what it was meant to be: a free and independent nation with states and local municipalities being the primary mechanisms of governance.
